Order: 2010

- 6

- 16

Served: June 11, 2010



### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation

on the 11 th day of June , 20 10

Ess ential Air Service at

KEARNEY, NEBRASKA

NORTH PLATTE, NEBRASKA

SCOTTSBLUFF, NEBRASKA Docket DOT

- OST

- 1996

- 1715

Docket DOT

- OST

- 1999

- 5173

Docket DOT

- OST

- 2003

- 14535

under 49 U.S.C. 41731 et seq.



### ORDER REQUESTING PROPOSALS

Summary

By this order , the Department is requesting proposals from carriers interested in providing

essential air service (EAS) at Kearney, North Platte, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska

, for the

two

- year p eriod beginning November 1, 2010

, with or without subsidy

. Proposals are due

by July 15

, 2010

. (See Appendix A for a map.)

Background

By Order 2008

- 7

- 33, the Department selected Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd. (Great Lakes) to

provid e each community 18 weekly nonstop round trips to Denver at a combined annual

subsidy of $5,373,700, fo r the two

- year period from November 1, 2010 through

October 31, 2012.

Request for Proposals

As the end of the curre nt contract approaches on October 31 , we are here requesting

proposals for a ne w t wo

- year period beginning November 1. Interested carriers should

prepare their proposals with every expectation that their initial proposals will represent- 2

-

their final and only proposals. However, we retain the discretion to negotiate proposals

with car riers when we deem it desirable. We also retain the discret ion to reject outright all

unreasonable or unrealistic proposals and resolicit a new round of proposals. However, we

anticipate that negotiation or rejection will remain only occasional exceptions to the rule.

We are here providing interested carriers wi th some basic information to assist them as

they prepare their proposals, but we will not prescribe a precise format for their

preparation. Proposals should provide sufficient capacity to accommodate historical levels

of traffic. We expect proposals to a dequately describe the service being proposed and the

annual amount of subsidy being requested. Applicants can make their own judgments as to

the level of detail they wish to present; however, they might want to include proposed

schedules, as well as supp orting data for their subsidy requests, such as projected block

hours, revenues, and expenses. We strongly encourage clear, well

- documented proposals

that will facilitate their evaluation by the community and the Department. 1

With specific respect to Ke arney

, North Platte, and Scottsbluff, we expect proposals

consisting of three nonstop round trips a day (18 per week) to Denver or another suitable

hub with connections to the nationa l air transportation system using 15

- seat or larger

aircraft

. We would a lso consider proposals for four or five round trips a day with eight

- or

nine

- seat aircraft. Should t he communities agree to aircraft with fewer than 15 passenger

seats, in effect waiving their right to 15

- seat or larger aircraft, we would consider the

wa iver to apply only to the two

- year carrier

- selection at hand, i.e. we would not assume

that the communities waive their rights for all time. Of cours e, we will formally solicit the

communities’ views on any service options we receive before making a long

- term

, carrier

selection decision. The communities and air carriers are encouraged to work together in

advance of the d ue date for proposals to craft service pattern s that are desirable to the

communities and that meet the operational needs of the airline interested in submitting a

proposal. In addition, carriers should be very clear as to whether a specific community’s

proposal is on a stand

- alone basis or whether it is part of a larger, inseparable package with

other communities.

We encourage proposa ls that meet those requirements in an efficient manner. Carriers are

also welcome to propose more than one service option, if they choose; they need not limit

themselves to those requirements if they envision other, potentially more attractive service

pos sibilities

-- different hubs, for example

-- with subsidy requirements that remain

competitive.

1 In selecting a carrier to provide subsidized essential air service, 49 U.S.C. 41733(c)(1) directs us to consider

four factors: (1) scheduled service reliability; (2) contractual and marketing arrangements with a larger carrier

to ensure service beyond the hub; (3) interline arrangements that the applicant has made with a larger carrier

at the hub; and (4) co mmunity views, giving substantial weight to the views of the elected officials

representing the users. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Public Law 110

- 161,

provides that when selecting a carrier to provide EAS, the Department may co nsider the relative subsidy

requirements, thus codifying a factor that we have considered since the inception of the program. Interested

carriers should also be aware that our general provisions governing essential air service will be included in

the sele ction order as part of our authorization of subsidy for the selected service. Appendix C of this order

contains those general provisions.- 3

-

New Filing Procedures

Carrier proposals should be submitted to the Department with all materials merged into a

single document. In addition, because the docum ent will be published on Regulations.gov,

each page should be formatted to be viewed online

.

Historical Traffic

In order to assist prospective applicants in making traffic and revenue forecasts, we have

included historical passe nger data from second quart er of 2006 through first quarter of

2010 in Appendix B.

Other Carrier Requirements

The Department is responsible for implementing various Federal statutes governing

lobbying activities, drug

- free workplaces, and nondiscrimination. 2 Consequently, all

carr iers receiving Federal subsidy for essential air service must certify that they are in

compliance with Department regulations regarding drug

- free workplaces and

nondiscrimination, and those carriers whose subsidies exceed $100,000 over the life of the

rate term must also certify that they are in compliance with the regulations governing

lobbying activities. Because the Department is prohibited from paying subsidy to carriers

that do not submit these documents, all carriers that plan to submit proposals inv olving

subsidy should be aware that the selected carrier will be expected to complete the required

certifications. Interested carriers requiring more detailed information regarding these

requirements as well as copies of the certifications should contact the Office of Aviation

Analysis at (202) 366

- 5903. 3

Community and State Comments

The communit ies and the state are welcome to submit comments at any time. We

encourage prospective applicants to contact the communit y before they submit their

proposals in order to tailor them to the communit y ’ s needs. As noted earlier, we will

provide a copy of the proposals to the civic parties and ask them to submit their final

comments shortly after July 15 , the deadline for filing carrier proposals.

This order is issu ed under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.56a(f) a n d re

- delegated to the

Director, Office of Aviation Analysis.

ACCORDINGLY,

2 The regulations applicable to these areas are: (1) 49 CFR Part 20

-- New restrictions on lobbying;

(2) 49 CFR Part 21

-- Nondiscrimination in federally

- assisted programs of the Department of Transportation

-

- Effectuation of title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 49 CFR Part 27

-- Nondiscrimination on the basis of

disability in programs and activities receiving or benefiting from Federal financial assistance; and

14 CFR Part 382

-- Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel; and (3) 49 CFR Part 29

--

Government

- wide debarment and suspension (non

- procurement) and government

- wide requirements for

drug

- free workplace (grants).

3 The certifications are also available at http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/index.html

.- 4

-

1. We request that carriers interested in providing essential air service at Kearney, North

Platte, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska, subm it their proposals, with or without subsidy requests,

no later than July 15 , 2010

. The proposals should be e

- mailed to EAS@dot.gov , with the

title: “Proposal to Provide Essential Air Service at Kearney (Docket DOT

- OST

- 1996

- 1715)

, North Platte (Docket DOT

- OST

- 1999

- 5173), and/or Scottsbluff, Nebraska ( Docket

DOT

- OST

- 2003

- 14535) ”; 4

2. Th ese docket s will remain open until further order of the Department; and

3. We will ser ve c opies of this order on the communities and airport managers of Kearney

, North Platt e, and Scottsbluff, Nebraska, Great Lakes Aviation, Ltd., and the carriers listed

in Appendix D.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of this order under the Department’s

Aviation Economic Regulations, 14 CFR Part 385.50, must file such petitions within ten

(10) days after the date of service of this order.

This order will be effective immediately, and the filing of a petition for review shall not

preclude its effectiveness.

By:

TODD M. HOMAN

Director

Office of Aviation Analysis

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document is ava ilable on the World Wide Web at

http://www.regulations.gov

4 Questions regarding filings in response to this orde r may be directed to Michael Martin at ( 202) 366

- 6494,

or michael.f.martin@dot.gov and proposals should be emailed to EAS@dot.gov

, no later than July 15, 2010

.Appendix A



## AREA MAPAppendix B

Page 1 of 3

Historical Origin

- Destination Passenger Traffic 1



### Kearney, Nebraska

Q uarter Year Deplanements Enplanements Total

Traffic Enplanements

per Day 2

2 2006 1,986 2,073 4,059 26

3 2006 2,114 2,009 4,123 2 6

4 2006 2,607 2,747 5,354 3 4

1 2007 2,799 2,860 5,659 37

2 2007 3,355 3,386 6,741 44

3 2007 3,230 3,155 6,385 41

4 2007 3,191 3,177 6,368 4 0

1 2008 3,096 3,122 6,218 4 1

2 2008 2,974 3,026 6,000 39

3 2008 3,159 2,973 6,132 39

4 2008 2,769 2,784 5,553 3 5

1 2009 2,415 2,414 4,829 3 2

2 2009 2,385 2,526 4,911 32

3 2009 2,385 2,321 4,706 3 0

4 2009 2,3 91 2,483 4,874 3 1

1 2010 2,162 2,210 4,372 2 9

1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T

- 100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.Appendix B

Page 2 of 3

Historical Origin

- Destination Passenger Traffic 1



### North Platte, Nebraska

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements Total

Traffic Enplanements

per Day 2

2 2006 2,121 2,103 4,224 27

3 2006 2,293 2,451 4,744 3 0

4 2006 2,057 2,085 4,142 26

1 2007 2,067 2,184 4,251 28

2 2007 2,806 2,810 5,616 36

3 2007 2,991 3,089 6,080 39

4 2007 2,740 2,652 5,392 34

1 2008 2,414 2,425 4,839 3 2

2 2008 2,640 2,624 5,264 34

3 2008 2,326 2,413 4,739 30

4 2008 2,183 2,151 4,334 27

1 2009 1,840 1,776 3,616 24

2 2009 1,963 1,983 3,946 26

3 2009 2,243 2,236 4,479 29

4 2009 1,874 1,845 3,719 24

1 2010 1,830 1,821 3,651 24

1 Source: USDOT Bureau of Transportation Sta tistics, T

- 100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, respectively, then by 2.Appendix B

Page 3 of 3

Historical Origin

- Destination Passenger Traffic 1



### Scottsbluff, Nebraska

Quarter Year Deplanements Enplanements Total

Traffic Enplanements

per day 2

2 2006 2,436 2,455 4,891 32

3 2006 2,520 2,591 5,111 33

4 2006 2,479 2,590 5,069 32

1 2007 2,444 2,462 4,906 32

2 2007 3,225 3,168 6,393 42

3 2007 3,001 3,081 6,082 39

4 2007 3,010 3,040 6,050 38

1 2008 2,459 2,571 5,030 33

2 2008 3,022 3,113 6,135 40

3 2008 2,292 2,413 4,705 30

4 2008 2,345 2,332 4,677 30

1 2009 2,14 0 2,144 4,284 28

2 2009 2,255 2,211 4,466 29

3 2009 2,210 2,288 4,498 29

4 2009 2,367 2,454 4,821 31

1 2010 2,240 2,251 4,491 30

1 Source: U SDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, T

- 100 Market.

2 Average enplanements are calculated by dividing total enplanements and deplanements by 77, 78, 79, and 76

service days, for the first quarter, second quarter, third quarter, and fourth quarter, resp ectively, then by 2.Appendix C

Example of General Terms and Conditions for Essential Air Service

The carrier understands that it may forfei t its compensation for any flights that it does not operate

in conformance with the terms and stipulations of the rate order, including the service plans

outlined in the order and any other significant elements of the required service, without prior

approv al. The carrier understands that an aircraft take

- off and landing at its scheduled

destination constitutes a completed flight; absent an explanation supporting subsidy eligibility

for a flight that has not been completed, such as certain weather cancellat ions, only completed

flights are considered eligible for subsidy. In addition, if the carrier does not schedule or operate

its flights in full conformance with the order for a significant period, it may jeopardize its entire

subsidy claim for the period i n question. If the carrier contemplates any such changes beyond

the scope of the order during the applicable period of these rates, it must first notify the Office of

Aviation Analysis in writing and receive written approval from the Department to be ensu red of

full compensation. Should circumstances warrant, the Department may locate and select a

replacement carrier to provide service on these routes. The carrier must complete all flights that

can be safely operated; flights that overfly points for lack of traffic will not be compensated. In

determining whether subsidy payment for a deviating flight should be adjusted or disallowed, the

Department will consider the extent to which the goals of the program are met and the extent of

access to the national air transportation system provided to the community.

If the Department unilaterally, either partially or completely, terminates or reduces payments for

service or changes service requirements at a specific location provided for under this order, then,

at the end of the period for which the Department does make payments in the stipulated amounts

or at the stipulated service levels, the carrier may cease to provide service to that specific

location without regards to any requirement for notice of such cessa tion. Those adjustments in

the levels of subsidy and/or service that are mutually agreed to in writing by the Department and

carrier do not constitute a total or partial reduction or cessation of payment.

Subsidy contracts are subject to, and incorporate by reference, relevant statutes and Department

regulations, as they may be amended from time to time. However, any such statutes, regulations,

or amendments thereto shall not operate to controvert the foregoing paragraph.

Funds are not currently availab le for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE]

. The

Department’s obligation for performance under this solicitation beyond [DATE] , is contingent

upon the availability of appropriated funds from which payment for services can be made. No

legal l iability on the part of the Government for any payment may arise for performanc e under

this order beyond [DATE]

, until funds are made available to the Department for performance. If

funds are not made availab le for performance beyond [DATE]

, the carrier w ill receive notice in

writing by the Department.

All claims for payment must be submitted within 60 days of the last day of service provided

under this order.Appendix D

Scheduled Air Carriers, Contiguous US and Puerto Rico

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Aaron Goe rlich Kenmore Air, Tim Brooks

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Charles Mintz Mesa Air Group, Jonathan Ornstein

Air Greco, d/b/a Wings Air, Robert Rupard Mesa Air Group, Michael Lotz

Air Sunshine, Mirmohammad Adili Mesa Air Group, Mike Holcomb

Air Wisconsin, Barbara Jones Mesaba, Max Shemesh

Alaska Airlines, Jeff Cole Mesaba, John Spanjers

Alaska Airlines, Sandy Sinick Midwest Airlines, Anthony Intravia

Allegiant Air, Robert Ashscroft Midwest Airlines, David Reeve

Alliance Air, Paul Berliner Midwest Airli nes, Greg Aretakis

American Airlines, Carl Nelson MN Aviation, Jose Maldonado

American Eagle, Jeff Hartz Multi Aero, Darnea

Bemidji Aviation, Arlen Rinkenberger Multi Aero, Shane Storz

Bemidji Aviation, Cori Rude NYDC, Henok Araya

Cape Air, Andrew Bon ney OST, Dennis DeVany, Kevin Adams

Cape Air, Dan Wolf OST, Michael Martin, Kevin Schlemmer

Cape Air, J. Flaherty OST, Brian Swanson , Renee Williams,

Caribbean Sun Airlines, John Rupert Pacific Wings, Frank Ford

Colgan Air, Mike Colgan Pacific Wings, G reg Kahlstorf

Colgan Air, Kevin Scott Pinnacle Airlines, Joe Williams

CommutAir, Andy Price Pinnacle Airlines, Phil Reed

CommutAir, Joel Raymond Public Charters, Jim Gallagher

Continental, Bruce Keiner Salmon Air, Dan Schroeder

Continental, Dan Weiss Salmon Air, JoAnn Wolters

Continental, Lorry Halloway Scenic, Mary Schneider

Delta Air Lines

, Amy Martin Scenic, Mitzi Daines

Delta Air Lines, Jeff Morgan Seaborne Airlines, Wayne D’Amico

Delta Air Lines, Dan Shuman SeaPort Airlines, Rob McKinney

Delt a Air Lines, Joe Esposito Shuttle America, Jerry Balsano

Delta Air Lines, Sascha Vanderbellen SkyWest, Eric Christensen

Delta Air Lines , Karen Zachary SkyWest, Michael Thompson

Executive Airlines, Kate Soled Sovereign Air, Bob Karns

Great Lakes Airline s, Chuck Howell Sovereign Air, Lois R. Barton

Great Lakes Airlines, Doug Voss Tradewind, Eric Zipkin

Great Lakes Airlines, Greg Stephens Trans States, Bill Mishk

Gulfstream, Dave Hackett Trans States, Gerry Wigmore

Gulfstream, Mickey Bowman United, Ali cia Gabriel

Gulfstream, T. Cooper United, James Starnes

Homeland Security, Michael Duffy US Airways, Howard Kass

Homeland Security, Randy Webb US Airways, Jason Reisinger

Horizon Air, Dan Russo US Airways, Benjamin Slocum

Horizon Air, Jennifer Thompso n Vintage Props and Jets, Nate Vallier

Horizon Air, Jeff Cole

ICEPR, Luis Irizarry

Island Air Charters, Linda House

Jet Air, Daniel Wolford